EIR NEWS SERVICE ITEM
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
DATE-LINE: LEESBURG, 20 Dec. 1988
"PROMETHEUS" LA ROUCHE SENDS REPLY
TO WOULD-BE GODS OF OLYMPUS
==================================
The would-be "gods of Olympus," who claim to control the Reagan
administration, the incoming Bush administration, and the U.S. judicial
system up to the level of the Supreme Court, have chosen to dispatch me a
series of messages. For reasons to be made clear, my reply is being
transmitted via the public news media, via this and other appropriate
publications.
The first message, delivered a few weeks ago, was in the nature of a
"calling card." This message predicted the rigged, corrupt verdict which
those agencies claimed they had rearranged in the Alexandria Federal court
case concluded last friday. That message was an accurate prediction of
results accomplished by means of "sleepers" planted inside the jury.
As that predicted result was occurring, a second message was sent from
the same source via the same channel. This message predicts that I have
approximately thirty days to accept the terms of submission to be proferred
by the messenger's principals, or see myself and those associated with me
destroyed through the U.S. courts. The messenger stated that his principals
control the U.S. courts up to the highest level in this matter, to the
effect that everything is already fixed up to the highest level of both the
courts and the Reagan and Bush administrations.
I am informed that the proposed terms of my submission are to be the
subject of a third message. The second message states that I must now
indicate whether or not I am now prepared to negotiate such terms, whatever
they might be. For reasons explained below, it is necessary that I deliver
my reply publicly, in the manner I do here.
My Message In Reply
-------------------
The answer to that message is "No."
I am willing to discuss any policy on the merits of the policy itself; I
am always open to be persuaded to alter my views on the basis of reason,
provided reason shows such alteration to be more consistent with my
principles than my resent tactical and strategic postures, and also
provided that it is understood I will never change policies in important
matters without making the reasons for those changes clear to all supporters
and others to whom I am morally accountable.
However, say, that with the image of Christ in gethsemane before my
mind's eye, I will never compromise my principled commitments at any price.
For clarity through emphasis, I restate what I consider egotiable.
I am not perfect, and therefore recognize that there may be better
tactical and strategic measures for realizing my principles than those I
have conceived thus far. On this pecific account, I am open to reason.
There exist, doubtless, concerns of which I am not ad-quately informed,
in respect to which my policies should be mplified to take these matters
into account, and that in a anner consistent with my principles.
In such matters, I am open to reason, provided this nvolves no
compromise of principle.
However, I recognize no highest authority on this planet xcepting the
Creator and His natural law. The very existence f bodies of wealthy
powerful families, which consider them-elves as families in the likeness of
the mythical gods of lympus, represents in and of itself an insolence
against both od and man which is anathema to me. On these matters, no
ompromise is possible.
Those Principled Commitments
----------------------------
Although I am a leading figure of an ecumenical associat-on of
Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Bhuddists, and others, hat association is
committed to practical means of realization f policies set forth in such
Papal encyclicals as the 1967 Progressio Populorum> and more recent
. No one who knows those encylcicals and knows
my policies f practice during the recent twenty-odd years could have any
easonable doubt of this fact.
Specifically, on account of the latter of the two cited ncyclicals, I
concur most emphatically to the reference to the structures of sin"
currently dominating, respectively, the ast and the West. The tradition of
constituting powerful ealthy families prone to sundry forms of usury, as a
form of ower over nations cast in the image of the Gods of Olympus, s the
essence of those "structures of sin" which have ngendered the greatest
evils afflicting the community of ations today.
I am content that such families should prosper, and enjoy uch prosperity
for themselves. I will never accept their fficient conspiring to
constitute themslves a power above epresentative governments of sovereign
nations, to such effect hat they cast themselves in the image of the
mythical Gods of lympus. The former status of such families is a set of
atters which is negotiable with me; the latter is not.
My particular commitments ought to be very well known from oth my
published statements and the consistency of all my olicy-formulation in
consistency with those statements. I ist the most relevant of those
commitments here, to ensure bsolute clarity of the import of this message
of reply.
I am essentially a Christian philosopher, and, with that pecific
qualification a "philosopher king" in the sense defined y Plato. This role
has emerged as a kind of metamorphosis f the central personal developments
in my life during the years 934-1952. Those developments are essentially
two; they are istinct, but closely interrelated.
First, at the age of twelve, I embarked upon a study of eading modern
philosophers of the seventeenth and eighteenth enturies. Out of this, I
came to abhor everything repres-nted by Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, John
Locke, David ume, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and to establish myself, ince
the period of my thirteenth and fourteenth years, a ollower of Leibniz. My
development as a philosopher, and all f my principal intellectual and
related achievements since, as forged in my work of disproving the central
dogmas of mmanuel Kant's , in defense of Leibniz.
Second, the intertwining of my youthful preparations for ossible entry
into the Christian ministry with these philo-ophical studies, prompted me
to reject the evangelical form of evout Quaker faith in which I had been
reared. I came to the ainful realization of reason, that the Quakers,
including y devout parents, erred fundamentally in holding God re-ponsible
for the condition of mankind; the Creator holds each f us responsible for
the condition of mankind, to the limit of ur means to remedy suffering and
evils.
On the basis of my successful refutation of Kant, and my indred
axiomatic refutation of the anti-human dogmas respect-ng the human mind, of
professors Norbert Wiener and John von eumann, by 1952 I had produced
important discoveries in the ield of physical economy, respecting,
immediately, the in-elligible nature of the causal relationship between
scientific rogress and increase of the potential population-density of the
uman species. As part of the same effort, I defined the ntelligibility of
the same creative processes responsible for alid fundamental scientific
discoveries, as the basis for ajor creative works in the classical fine
arts.
As the human individual is set apart from and above all he beasts,
fundamentally, by the divine gift of the potent-al for rigorous forms of
creative reason, it is in this re-pect that the individual person is in the
image of the living reator. This fact is the intelligible premise for
defining he practical meaning of the terms and .
Encumbered with this knowledge, it became more and more he dedication of
my life to serve this principle: to defend hose forms of institutions of
sovereign nation-states which, ike emphasis upon scientific and
technological progress, oster the development and expression of those
aspects of in-ividual human nature which reflect the image of the living
reator.
Today, from this viewpoint I have so described, our lanet is afflicted
with two great evils.
The first is the spread of satanic evil in the guises of hat is called
variously "The New Age," the "Age of Aquarius," r simply the "radical
counterculture." Fascism and Bolshev-sm, like the avowed Anti-Christs
Nietzsche and Aleister rowley, are but particular forms of expression of
this sub-uming satanic evil which is the New Age insurgency.
The avowed purpose of the New Age, is to eradicate the cultural matrix"
of Western European Judeo-Christian civiliz-tion from the institutions and
even the memory of this planet.
The second evil, is the great and spreading social in-ustice, typified
by the plight of the majority in the looted Third World," and the growing
poor inside the U.S. itself. ocial and economic justice for these nations
and their poor, s the great noble task placed before the post-war world.
The ould-be Gods of Olympus, both as wealthy families of the West r the
Soviet Nomenklatura, have not only rejected that task, ut have brought this
injustice to the most savage extremes, ith their usurious looting, their
crushing of the sovereign-ties of nations, and their evil, neo-malthusian
"post-ndustrial" utopianism.
The clear mission of the United States is to assume its roper leading
role in defeating the spread of the first evil, nd in righting of the great
wrongs of social and economic in-ustice against the poor of this planet,
both within these nited States and without. We have reached the point,
that ither the United States abandons the evil policies of usury, eo-
malthusianism, and foul compromises with Soviet evil, hich have dominated
increasingly the policy-shaping of the ecent twenty-odd years, or the
United States will surely be estroyed during the relatively near-term
period ahead of us oday.
The point has been reached, at which the Creator will no onger tolerate
the rule over mankind by those responsible for he condition to which
mankind is being reduced. Our nation ust change itself on these accounts,
or be doomed. In any ase, what is dawning now, is not "the Age of
Aquarius," but he holocaust of extinction of those institutions which serve
he rule over mankind by would-be Gods of Olympus.
Hence, on this account, my frail person touches the most wesome power of
this planet, a power greater than all overnments, and greater than any
would-be Gods of Olympus. If uch forces continue their efforts to
exterminate the cause hich I represent, their success on that account
ensures their wn extermination not long afterward. This power is not my
ersonal possession; it is a power to pass final judgment upon ll would-be
judges, a power emanating from the Creator. It s not my hand, or that of
my friends, which would destroy hose who would destroy me and my friends,
it is the Hand of rovidence.
This Message
------------
The first function of this message of reply is to provoke suitable
verification of the second message delivered to me, o ensure that the
messenger has represented the views of those is credentials imply he does
represent.
The second function, is to ensure that those principals ave opportunity
to reconsider their announced course, and to hape any further message to me
accordingly.
The reasons for choosing this channel to make this reply, ught to be
obvious to those whom the messenger represents.
---30---
